EvaOdland

Greta

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, dash34 said:

D-BR3m6XUAEjdS8.jpg:large

 

‘When you have nothing of substance to add, post a meme you found on google’ 

- Randumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, random said:

Totally support that.

Just goes to show just how fucking evil the denial industry is.  I'm not sure why I would be surprised about people who kill millions of others for cash and rape the planet in the process, but this is fucked-up stuff.

The cunt should be flicked.

Just a shame I’m not a climate denier.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, random said:

That's fucked up logic.

The Japanese are killing whales because Sea Shepard is trying to stop them.  YCMTSU.

That’s right, deny that other cultures have behave and react differently to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, random said:

Totally support that.

Just goes to show just how fucking evil the denial industry is.  I'm not sure why I would be surprised about people who kill millions of others for cash and rape the planet in the process, but this is fucked-up stuff.

The cunt should be flicked.

Well if hoppy has killed millions of people for cash and raped the planet, I agree he should be banned. But the rules only allow for those that make Pedo accusations to be flicked. 

This thread has got legs. Last time we had a thread about a 16 year old girls accomplishes it deteriorated into one of the classic SA shitfights. I wonder what ever happened to that Kiwi retard Grahame? I will bet he is still lurking on the AC board. Lots of weirdos in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB, you came out of hibernation on the wrong side of the tide mate. You need to come up for air. This bunny character you're supporting is straight outta a comic book from behind the counter. What a twisted tweaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lasal said:

LB, you came out of hibernation on the wrong side of the tide mate. You need to come up for air. This bunny character you're supporting is straight outta a comic book from behind the counter. What a twisted tweaker.

Close ... LB's prostate op didn't go well I heard.  He's still waiting for some response and he's not happy/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lasal said:

LB, you came out of hibernation on the wrong side of the tide mate. You need to come up for air. This bunny character you're supporting is straight outta a comic book from behind the counter. What a twisted tweaker.

I am not supporting anyone. Not every issue has to be 'are you with us or against us' scenario. I think some people here think the way yacht club cultures work is the real world. I have never mentioned her condition or her appearance (apart from that 1000 yard stare of hers.)  IMHO she is simply a young girl with passion that is being manipulated by others for their own agenda. And if you don't believe she has handlers promoting her or people to help her write her lectures, then I still have that bridge for sale.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Western Long Island Sound.

Also known as New Yorkers with Sailboats.

Thank you. So what do they do that pisses off D'ranger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Thank you. So what do they do that pisses off D'ranger?

Not sure. Vote against Obama? Sail on starboard tack too often?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

Next I want you to sit. Now roll over on your back. Good boy have a biscuit. 

fuck I love this place. 

seriously dude you have sum sum weird fantasies  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Crash said:

You do know that Bill Nye has an mech engineering degree, worked for Boeing, started doing standup comedy, quit Boeing to focus on his comedy, then got into television, first locally, then with “Bill Nye the Science Guy”

He’s not actually a “scientist” and holds no advanced degrees or degrees in science....

Edit: I’m not saying he’s incorrect, nor that he isn’t knowledgeable on scientific matters...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

A/ 'Liar' is still used as is 'satire'.

B/ Pardon my ignorance but does 'WLIS' stand for?

This is a US website.  But we are supposed to understand WA, QL and NSW and Bogan so you blokes should learn a little of the local argot.  You do know SFO and LAX, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hoppy said:

Nice comment from someone who took Trump from being a reality TV star to President.

Me? I did it? Dude, you are out of your gourd. I am a pretty good judge of character based partly on a lifetime of dealing with weirdos and conmen and I pegged Trump for both a long time ago. It's also why I called you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fastyacht said:

Not sure. Vote against Obama? Sail on starboard tack too often?

Gee, you could ask or just pull shit out of your ass, you know like you normally do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Gee, you could ask or just pull shit out of your ass, you know like you normally do.

Dude, I never realized I got under your skin so much. Frankly I don't think we've ever had much interaction. You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VWAP said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/24/how-greta-thunbergs-rise-could-backfire-on-environmentalists.html

 

 

How 16-year-old Greta Thunberg’s rise could backfire on environmentalists

You mean that if the denial industry placing all it's effort into taking her down because of FAS, criminal parents, child abuse, handlers and shit like that ... that it could back fire?

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VWAP said:

seriously dude you have sum sum weird fantasies  

That's it- go fetch the stick.

Good boy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

This is a US website.  But we are supposed to understand WA, QL and NSW and Bogan so you blokes should learn a little of the local argot.  You do know SFO and LAX, right?

What is QL? Queensland Larger? Not sure what SFO is but I know that LAX is an airport because my child bride is getting on a plane there in about 2 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, random said:

image.png.d62e1edf536cab3240412809e6aa3460.png

Good point.  Cardinal George Pell had handlers so does that mean God doesn't exist?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

What is QL? Queensland Larger? Not sure what SFO is but I know that LAX is an airport because my child bride is getting on a plane there in about 2 hours. 

You need to get out more.  And if your child bride isn't coming from the Ukraine, you're playing on one of the side courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Good point.  Cardinal George Pell had handlers so does that mean God doesn't exist?

Fuck off with your shit LB, it's old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

You need to get out more.  And if your child bride isn't coming from the Ukraine, you're playing on one of the side courts.

She has only been gone a week so I don't think she would be on board with the Ukrainian teenager program.

Mind you, we could use the child to make a fortune as a spokesperson for the next generation for some cause. Now what cause could we use...climate change is taken. Something that we can use as an excuse to buy a Carbon Racing yacht would be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random said:

Fuck off with your shit LB, it's old.

Gosh you can be rude sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a tangential note, did you notice that VWAP's new thread on the other GRETA's sailing photos (Garbo, that is) went missing? Can't understand what would have precipitated that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LB 15 said:

No shit Sherlock.

Yes but lot of people here seem to believe that they know better than the scientists because they've spent 5 minutes reading political blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

On a tangential note, did you notice that VWAP's new thread on the other GRETA's sailing photos (Garbo, that is) went missing? Can't understand what would have precipitated that.

That is a pity as there was some great Pics being posted, but you can always rely on that moron VWAP to fuck things up. Notice he never posts during school hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

No but  did notice he posts in similar time windows as you do.

Another Zinger. You go girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

Yes but lot of people here seem to believe that they know better than the scientists because they've spent 5 minutes reading political blogs.

as if they were one amorphous blob...

 

scientific method

noun
 
  1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
     
    cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg
     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hoppy said:

The parents are using her to sell their books after fucking her life by boozing during pregnancy. The parents are disgusting.

 

What a fucking lowlife.  Seriously, I've been in this shithole for years and this shit from you is as low a bar as I've seen. 

Can't fucking wait till you hit a trip wire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

as if they were one amorphous blob...

 

scientific method

noun
 
  1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
     
    cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs1.jpg
     

 

The person who produced this graph was probably trying to fool people, if you are serious about making up your mind independently, you need to read about enthalpy, thermodynamic systems and first law of thermodynamics.... It is accessible, just a few hours of self study would do.

This is just basic science that you learn as an undergraduate, not high flying climate science. I am not a climate scientist, not even a scientist, just an engineer who was paying attention to his science classes and I saw the "trick used to mislead" instantly.

Nevertheless I agree with your definition of scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

And for those that are not into DIY science, here is the last statement of the IPCC about oceans :

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/SROCC_PressRelease_EN.pdf

How do you feel about the ipcc completely ignoring solar forcing; for example they consider the impact from the sun and space to be a constant level and anything above their arbitrary numbers to be man made? Or that we’re about to come out of the largest grand solar maximum in eleven thousand years?

 

They predict more and more heat by 2100, Id love to place a wager that the earth will begin cooling by 2040. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

How do you feel about the ipcc completely ignoring solar forcing; for example they consider the impact from the sun and space to be a constant level and anything above their arbitrary numbers to be man made? Or that we’re about to come out of the largest grand solar maximum in eleven thousand years?

  

They predict more and more heat by 2100, Id love to place a wager that the earth will begin cooling by 2040. 

 

How do you feel being so stupid that you shaft the IPCC without more than the shit you regurgitate from shill sites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, random said:

 

How do you feel being so stupid that you shaft the IPCC without more than the shit you regurgitate from shill sites?

Shaft? It’s literally using science to show they are full of shit my dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bodega87 said:

Shaft? It’s literally using science to show they are full of shit my dude. 

You are full of shit.  You got nothing, but it could be funni if you send us some bullshit from a shill site?

What you got, this should be fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

How do you feel about the ipcc completely ignoring solar forcing; for example they consider the impact from the sun and space to be a constant level and anything above their arbitrary numbers to be man made? Or that we’re about to come out of the largest grand solar maximum in eleven thousand years?

 

They predict more and more heat by 2100, Id love to place a wager that the earth will begin cooling by 2040. 

Well, I didn't study the paper supporting the findings to know if they actually ignore solar forcing (I doubt to be honest). Nevertheless, assuming that they do, right now solar activity is at a minimum (if you don't trust professional scientists, ask an amateur radio fan) thus we would be experiencing cooling if global warming wasn't happening yet we are observing warming.

Studying all the science output relating to global warming would be very time consuming, very few people knows the ins and outs (such as where they integrate solar forcings) that's why it is so easy for lobbyists to misrepresent scientific findings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, random said:

You are full of shit.  You got nothing, but it could be funni if you send us some bullshit from a shill site?

What you got, this should be fun.

 

I’m not doing your research for you. The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact. 
 

Spend a little time reading on what it does to our atmosphere, the phase were in(and about to end) and it’s relation to climate here. Scientists ignoring this or assuming it’s a constant causes any and all predictions and theories to be false. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

I’m not doing your research for you. The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact. 
 

Spend a little time reading on what it does to our atmosphere, the phase were in(and about to end) and it’s relation to climate here. Scientists ignoring this or assuming it’s a constant causes any and all predictions and theories to be false. 

You are simply not very good at researching, a 10 seconds internet search showed that they were already reporting on it in 2007 : https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-4.html

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

You are simply not very good at researching, a 10 seconds internet search showed that they were already reporting on it in 2007 : https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-4.html

Did you read that paper? It literally says they don’t understand it and use arbitrary numbers to account for what they don’t understand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

I’m not doing your research for you. The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact. 

image.png.9225cdc5f5813131264ec567b1835661.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, duncan (the other one) said:

As with so many people in this debate, you ignore opportunity cost.

Would the money be better spent eradicating TB or malaria?  Providing clean drinking water to the third world?

 

My suggestion is that the problem can be and benefits from being framed from a risk management perspective. If the overwhelming majority of scientists are right, and we don't act, then outcome is catastrophic. If they are wrong and we do act, the outcome definitely includes a significant negative opportunity cost impact, but far from catastrophic.  From a risk management perspective, even if you think there is even only a 1 in 10 chance that 97% of all scientists are right, then isn't that worth acting on? 

As an analogy, what if you doctor told you that there is a 1 in 10 chance that you have a brain tumor that is going to kill you in the near future unless you had kale smoothies for breakfast every day. You, like any decent human being, would probably prefer a solid bacon egg and cheese, but don't you think you might work in a few kale smoothies? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Climate is complicated, I am not convinced that any of us has the knowledge  [B2B: YES!!!!!  EXACTLY!!!!]

2 hours ago, Panoramix said:

The person who produced this graph was probably trying to fool people, if you are serious about making up your mind independently, you need to read about enthalpy, thermodynamic systems and first law of thermodynamics.... It is accessible, just a few hours of self study would do.

This is just basic science that you learn as an undergraduate, not high flying climate science. I am not a climate scientist, not even a scientist, just an engineer who was paying attention to his science classes and I saw the "trick used to mislead" instantly.

Nevertheless I agree with your definition of scientific method.

A few hours of self-study can prove that climate science is on very shaky ground, but it's much harder, perhaps impossible to *prove* that the predictions are accurate.

This is one of the fundamental problems about this "debate".  Something like the earth's climate is so big and complex that we will *never* be able to make accurate predictions about long-term behaviours.  People, we literally can't make predictions about much, much more simple systems.  Look up "The Three Body Problem" in physics, and try to appreciate what it means as far as "truth" when it comes to making predictions about complex systems.  One can hardly imagine a simpler system, yet it is one we will never. ever. understand well enough to make accurate long-term predictions about its future states.

The earth as a whole is an open thermodynamic system, not a closed one, so some thermodynamic arguments are on ~shaky ground.  Many "scientists" gloss over this, or are even unaware of the assumptions about the underlying system that the model makes.  Remember that thermodynamics is just a modelling tool, and not all that different than, say, Newtonian mechanics.  We would not use Newtonian models for objects nearing light-speed, yet the validity-conditions for application of thermodynamic models are often ignored.  *Really* smart people need to be reminded of these things occasionally.

We can say the same thing about the statistics.  Panoramix, as far as understanding what the IPCC does, advanced statistics is more what is needed, because an awful lot of what "they" do is to manipulate data sets, draw correlations, estimate trend-lines and risk, etc.  This is another area fraught with assumptions of independence, "normalcy" etc, and where the conditions necessary for proper application of the math (and therefore, confidence in the result) are absent.  It doesn't mean we can't learn from the data sets and statistics, it just means we have to be very, very careful about the conclusions we draw, and the credence we give them.

It is *extremely* common in systems modelling to make assumptions that are known to be false in order to use a mathematical model that is tractable, and soluble in finite time (the entire field of economics relies on this approach).  This is discussed in all the IPCC reports.  But very little scientific effort is spent on reproducing results and exploring the ways in which these approximations of reality alter the system dynamics and accuracy of prediction.  I have quoted sections of IPCC reports discussing this before... but these details are all lost by the time the "Recommendations for policymakers" are extracted from the morass.

Other people here have covered off the duplicity of cherry-picking results and how easily it is done, and how easy it is to manipulate perceptions.  This happens on both sides of this "debate".

Trotting out schooling?  Whateva.  Bill Nye is a science guy?  My undergraduate degree was in Engineering Science, and graduate in Applied, with courses in classical, relativistic, and quantum physics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, organic and inorganic chemistry, geology, astrophysics, complexity theory, operational analysis, systems modelling.  And all the crazy math that goes with all that.  But messengers don't matter.  Read the messages.  But make sure you understand the language in which they are written.  In this case, it's math.

Solar forcing?  I believe solar forcing is currently moving to uncharted territory: https://www.quora.com/Since-this-current-solar-minimum-is-so-low-many-days-with-zero-sun-spots-will-this-low-sunspot-level-affect-the-earths-weather-and-climate-and-if-so-how  I doubt this was predicted.

Our magnetic field just started moving like stink towards Siberia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232360-700-the-north-pole-is-moving-and-if-it-flips-life-on-earth-is-in-trouble/   I doubt this was predicted.

Scientific consensus can only apply where there is hard science, experiment, reproducible result.  Climate science is at its infancy.  There is a lot we don't know.  Our understandings of biology, local ecosystems, local environmental impact, agricultural practices etc are much better developed, and there is much to be done.  Greta distracts from the important stuff. 

To the extent that she demonstrates the idiocy of listening to school dropouts about complex systems, she is doing good.

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

Well, I didn't study the paper supporting the findings to know if they actually ignore solar forcing (I doubt to be honest). Nevertheless, assuming that they do, right now solar activity is at a minimum (if you don't trust professional scientists, ask an amateur radio fan) thus we would be experiencing cooling if global warming wasn't happening yet we are observing warming.

Studying all the science output relating to global warming would be very time consuming, very few people knows the ins and outs (such as where they integrate solar forcings) that's why it is so easy for lobbyists to misrepresent scientific findings.

 

sun spot minimums are not the same as solar output minimums. Edit. I am conflating some different things here. Yes solar sunspot maximums have higher brightness (0.1%). There's another solar cycle I'm trying to remember though. Looking for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

 Our understandings of biology, local ecosystems, local environmental impact, agricultural practices etc are much better developed, and there is much to be done.  Greta distracts from the important stuff. 

To the extent that she demonstrates the idiocy of listening to school dropouts about complex systems, she is doing good.

 

 

 

But- I have achieved Sainthood, how dare you question the Church?

Deniers who question Settled Science - be gone!!!

 

28282A65-21FB-483E-B602-16D10788BFF0.jpeg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LB 15 said:

 

What? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, random said:

You mean that if the denial industry placing all it's effort into taking her down because of FAS, criminal parents, child abuse, handlers and shit like that ... that it could back fire?

 

 

Where did i write that.

Seriously dude , you  and "you're" pa nutters like limp buoy 15 n duh utters need to stay in pa . How did you numnutts find this sailing site?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a denier, but I do have a beef with a lot of the proposed solutions embedded in Greta's movement. It's essentially crypto-socialism swaddled in identity politics.

If you really believe that CO2 emissions uber alles are the be all end all of what must be addressed to solve the meta-problem of global warming how is it that you can outright dismiss nuclear power even if only as a transitory solution? Meaning, what if you used Gen III and Gen IV nuclear power systems for the next 100 years to reduce carbon output in the environment while you worked out other technologies that could manage the energy loads required on both production and consumption side? A nuclear generation station has 1/600th the footprint of equivalent "renewable" technologies. it produces real, reliable, base load power into networks exactly when society needs it, on demand.

Same goes for genetically modified crops. If you so want to ""save the world" why on earth would you not allowed poor countries to use crops that can increase their agricultural output? Or stabilize their crops in increasingly hotter temperatures where they will desperately need it?

Or why would these same groups that profess to want to save the world continue the ongoing cognitive dissonance inducing idea that we should have unfettered immigration from the third world to the West? When all that will do, among many other things, is boost radically the number of people living with first world standards of consumption and CO2 generation?

On these three major points, the movement that Greta is a spokesperson for, disagrees and they reject them categorically as possibilities for solving the problem at hand. To that extent how can one take them seriously. Two out of those three things have technological solutions at hand that could be put into effect in the timeframe (10-15 years) they insist upon and it could be done in a way that meshes with how the world works today without a RADICAL overhaul of global society. Yet they categorically reject these technologies and possibilities.

So yes, I buy the whole climate change thing, despite the frequent reports of abuse of dats sets etc, despite that I still buy that it's happening and that humans have more than a little to do with it. But I categorically reject many of the so called solutions offered under the banner of fixing "climate change". They don't have much to do with "fixing the climate", they have a lot more to do with "social justice".

They are not going to win a war on one front when they are obviously fighting on multiple fronts

Rejecting almost all possible solutions a priori because of a sub-textual agenda does not comport with their insistence on a huge innovation effort to solve the problem. If you say 80% of the possible fields of development are "out of bounds" before you even start, I question weather you want to get to the zero emissions goal or not. Innovation requires a lot of clear space to be able to flourish and the "movement's" clearly defined agenda precludes this. So I question how serious they are about getting to the goal.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bodega87 said:

I’m not doing your research for you. The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact. 
 

Spend a little time reading on what it does to our atmosphere, the phase were in(and about to end) and it’s relation to climate here. Scientists ignoring this or assuming it’s a constant causes any and all predictions and theories to be false. 

solar output has been low. what is your takeaway?

 

18 minutes ago, blunted said:

...Greta's movement. It's essentially crypto-socialism swaddled in identity politics.

 

bs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 3to1 said:

solar output has been low. what is your takeaway?

 

bs

That the earth will begin to cool. Like now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bodega87 said:

That the earth will begin to cool. Like now. 

good luck with that, moron.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blunted said:

Same goes for genetically modified crops. If you so want to ""save the world" why on earth would you not allowed poor countries to use crops that can increase their agricultural output? Or stabilize their crops in increasingly hotter temperatures where they will desperately need it?

Whoa!  I've really enjoyed your expertise on wings and high speed sailing here, and I have an open mind about various forms of nuclear energy.  But GMO is a whole different can of worms.  Forcing people to ingest GMO is akin to forcing vegetarians to adopt the Atkins dietNo thanks!

In addition, farmers have concerns like these about GMO: https://www.farmaid.org/issues/gmos/gmos-top-5-concerns-for-family-farmers/

  • CONCENTRATION & CORPORATE POWER
  • CONTAMINATION & ECONOMIC LOSS
  • SUPERWEEDS & SUPERPESTS
  • BIODIVERSITY
  • PATENTS

"Big 6" Pesticide and GMO Corporations  (BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, and Syngenta)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/"Big_6"_Pesticide_and_GMO_Corporations

 

re:  "we should have unfettered immigration from the third world to the West?" - This point is also nonsense.

With all due respect, stick to what you know.  Two of your "three major points" are bullshit as far as I'm concerned,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, ever wonder where all this amazing "data" is coming from? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=koch+funded+denier+groups

Do even whit of looking at see what 2 brothers have managed to do. They did stop ragging on Al Gore getting rich so have moved on to awesome obfuscation.  Here comes the sun do dah do do, here comes the sun and it's all right........

edit; funny thing that people rail about socialism while pushing GMO while ignoring that the company owns you. Ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Whoa!  I've really enjoyed your expertise on wings and high speed sailing here, and I have an open mind about various forms of nuclear energy.  But GMO is a whole different can of worms.  Forcing people to ingest GMO is akin to forcing vegetarians to adopt the Atkins dietNo thanks!

 

re:  "we should have unfettered immigration from the third world to the West?" - This point is also nonsense.

With all due respect, stick to what you know.  Two of your "three major points" are bullshit as far as I'm concerned,

Cheers, here's to arguing in good faith.

My point was not to force people to use GMO, that is straw manning my assertion, but rather that taking GMO off the table entirely seems short sighted in respect of solving the agricultural  problem at hand. Is there a possibility of a second "green revolution" without GMO? If not, will things get more Malthusian over the coming decades? (I will add that the agricultural problem at hand is frequently cited as a direct byproduct of global warming, which I accept completely, so I assume that as a major symptom of AGW it needs to be at the very least considered during such discussions as to what to do about AGW in general)

How about this Proa, under what conditions could GMO crops be an acceptable solution to the problem of billions of mouths to feed in increasingly unstable environmental conditions? Is that a fair question? Is there any condition where GMO crops could be developed outside of the corporate environment for example that would be acceptable? What if the government of a country, say Indonesia developed a GMO crop for rice that could withstand higher ambient temperatures and yield higher levels of output and they were to offer it free and without the kind of patent protection lawfare that I imagine you are not pleased with? Would that be an acceptable solution?

 

Furthermore, I will concede that I was straw manning with "unfettered migration". But I will ask any takers the same question with respect to migration from poor parts of the world to rich parts of the world where CO2 generation and output is an order of magnitude higher per capita. How much migration is enough? or perhaps how much migration from poor to rich is appropriate if the uber-goal is to reduce global CO2 to say the levels as outlined by the IPCC. I don't care from where the migrant comes to support the argument other than they consume a fraction of what a first worlder consumes today and by virtue of moving to the first world and becoming part of that society it is all but a forgone conclusion that their consumption and subsequent production of per capita CO2 is going to go up by roughly a factor of ten. If, to borrow a phrase, "My house is on fire". Should I be inviting more guests into the house at that time, particularly the room that is producing the most smoke? Perhaps these guests come bearing buckets of water that could be useful in fighting the fire? I'm not sure so that's why I am asking. 

Yes, my post was a provocation, but my provocation is rooted in a desire to find solutions. I am of the belief that you need to cast the net very wide indeed if you are to find solutions that can be implemented without radical disruptions to society. Solutions are going to require some compromises across time and space. It's highly unlikely we can successfully change everything at once about the way we live, so we need to prioritize. We cannot prioritize if we cannot have honest, sometimes difficult and wide ranging discussions about possible solutions if some of them have been deemed by a small group that they are utterly outside the possibility of discussion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bacq2bacq said:

A few hours of self-study can prove that climate science is on very shaky ground, but it's much harder, perhaps impossible to *prove* that the predictions are accurate.

This is one of the fundamental problems about this "debate".  Something like the earth's climate is so big and complex that we will *never* be able to make accurate predictions about long-term behaviours.  People, we literally can't make predictions about much, much more simple systems.  Look up "The Three Body Problem" in physics, and try to appreciate what it means as far as "truth" when it comes to making predictions about complex systems.  One can hardly imagine a simpler system, yet it is one we will never. ever. understand well enough to make accurate long-term predictions about its future states.

The earth as a whole is an open thermodynamic system, not a closed one, so some thermodynamic arguments are on ~shaky ground.  Many "scientists" gloss over this, or are even unaware of the assumptions about the underlying system that the model makes.  Remember that thermodynamics is just a modelling tool, and not all that different than, say, Newtonian mechanics.  We would not use Newtonian models for objects nearing light-speed, yet the validity-conditions for application of thermodynamic models are often ignored.  *Really* smart people need to be reminded of these things occasionally.

We can say the same thing about the statistics.  Panoramix, as far as understanding what the IPCC does, advanced statistics is more what is needed, because an awful lot of what "they" do is to manipulate data sets, draw correlations, estimate trend-lines and risk, etc.  This is another area fraught with assumptions of independence, "normalcy" etc, and where the conditions necessary for proper application of the math (and therefore, confidence in the result) are absent.  It doesn't mean we can't learn from the data sets and statistics, it just means we have to be very, very careful about the conclusions we draw, and the credence we give them.

It is *extremely* common in systems modelling to make assumptions that are known to be false in order to use a mathematical model that is tractable, and soluble in finite time (the entire field of economics relies on this approach).  This is discussed in all the IPCC reports.  But very little scientific effort is spent on reproducing results and exploring the ways in which these approximations of reality alter the system dynamics and accuracy of prediction.  I have quoted sections of IPCC reports discussing this before... but these details are all lost by the time the "Recommendations for policymakers" are extracted from the morass.

Other people here have covered off the duplicity of cherry-picking results and how easily it is done, and how easy it is to manipulate perceptions.  This happens on both sides of this "debate".

Trotting out schooling?  Whateva.  Bill Nye is a science guy?  My undergraduate degree was in Engineering Science, and graduate in Applied, with courses in classical, relativistic, and quantum physics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, organic and inorganic chemistry, geology, astrophysics, complexity theory, operational analysis, systems modelling.  And all the crazy math that goes with all that.  But messengers don't matter.  Read the messages.  But make sure you understand the language in which they are written.  In this case, it's math.

Solar forcing?  I believe solar forcing is currently moving to uncharted territory: https://www.quora.com/Since-this-current-solar-minimum-is-so-low-many-days-with-zero-sun-spots-will-this-low-sunspot-level-affect-the-earths-weather-and-climate-and-if-so-how  I doubt this was predicted.

Our magnetic field just started moving like stink towards Siberia: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232360-700-the-north-pole-is-moving-and-if-it-flips-life-on-earth-is-in-trouble/   I doubt this was predicted.

Scientific consensus can only apply where there is hard science, experiment, reproducible result.  Climate science is at its infancy.  There is a lot we don't know.  Our understandings of biology, local ecosystems, local environmental impact, agricultural practices etc are much better developed, and there is much to be done.  Greta distracts from the important stuff. 

To the extent that she demonstrates the idiocy of listening to school dropouts about complex systems, she is doing good.

 

 

 

Well for a start the earth (I mean the planet, its ocean and its whole atmosphere) is a closed system as no matter is exchanged with outer space. Ok, there are asteroids entering our atmosphere but I think that we can agree that their effect on the system enthalpy is minimal. I imagine that by close system you meant "isolated system" but thermodynamics applies to systems which aren't isolated.

I wonder how you can prove a positive (climate is on shaky grounds) as this is not how science works. Science works by formulating hypothesis and trying unsuccessfully to disprove them until you are satisfied that the hypothesis is robust enough to be called a theory.

As for the solar minimum, we should be grateful as without it, global warming and climate change would be worse. I am not sure if it was predicted but that doesn't disprove the global warming theory (Humans are releasing vast amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and these gases are warming the planet through a "greenhouse effect") nor the climate change theory (Global warming has all kind of effects on our climate)   as it is independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planet is warming. period. The planet is in a long term cooling phase. Hilarious cognitive dissonance ensues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bodega87 said:

Did you read that paper? It literally says they don’t understand it and use arbitrary numbers to account for what they don’t understand. 

I didn't as I was only trying to assert whether your claim that " The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact.  " was wild or not.

Within 10 seconds I established that your claim was utterly wrong.

Now you are trying to move the goal post from "they don't account for it" to "they don't understand it". I am sorry but I am an engineer, I don't do politics, I just reserve myself the right to laugh at politicians and at their fallacious arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, blunted said:

How about this Proa, under what conditions could GMO crops be an acceptable solution to the problem of billions of mouths to feed in increasingly unstable environmental conditions?

None.  GMO crops that withstand RoundUp ("weed killer") and other forms of pesticide result in humans ingesting pesticide.  It's an extremely short sighted solution with deleterious side effects, known and unknown.  GMO is more of the same kind of thinking that justifies antibiotics in cattle and pigs to increase yield, again with major side effects that are increasingly hard to avoid, even for vegetarians.

https://www.nrdc.org/save-antibiotics

Quote

Overuse of modern antibiotics has given rise to “superbugs”—bacteria that are now resistant to numerous antibiotics.

We must stop fucking with mother nature like this!

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blunted said:

Cheers, here's to arguing in good faith.

My point was not to force people to use GMO, that is straw manning my assertion, but rather that taking GMO off the table entirely seems short sighted in respect of solving the agricultural  problem at hand. Is there a possibility of a second "green revolution" without GMO? If not, will things get more Malthusian over the coming decades? (I will add that the agricultural problem at hand is frequently cited as a direct byproduct of global warming, which I accept completely, so I assume that as a major symptom of AGW it needs to be at the very least considered during such discussions as to what to do about AGW in general)

How about this Proa, under what conditions could GMO crops be an acceptable solution to the problem of billions of mouths to feed in increasingly unstable environmental conditions? Is that a fair question? Is there any condition where GMO crops could be developed outside of the corporate environment for example that would be acceptable? What if the government of a country, say Indonesia developed a GMO crop for rice that could withstand higher ambient temperatures and yield higher levels of output and they were to offer it free and without the kind of patent protection lawfare that I imagine you are not pleased with? Would that be an acceptable solution?

 

Furthermore, I will concede that I was straw manning with "unfettered migration". But I will ask any takers the same question with respect to migration from poor parts of the world to rich parts of the world where CO2 generation and output is an order of magnitude higher per capita. How much migration is enough? or perhaps how much migration from poor to rich is appropriate if the uber-goal is to reduce global CO2 to say the levels as outlined by the IPCC. I don't care from where the migrant comes to support the argument other than they consume a fraction of what a first worlder consumes today and by virtue of moving to the first world and becoming part of that society it is all but a forgone conclusion that their consumption and subsequent production of per capita CO2 is going to go up by roughly a factor of ten. If, to borrow a phrase, "My house is on fire". Should I be inviting more guests into the house at that time, particularly the room that is producing the most smoke? Perhaps these guests come bearing buckets of water that could be useful in fighting the fire? I'm not sure so that's why I am asking. 

Yes, my post was a provocation, but my provocation is rooted in a desire to find solutions. I am of the belief that you need to cast the net very wide indeed if you are to find solutions that can be implemented without radical disruptions to society. Solutions are going to require some compromises across time and space. It's highly unlikely we can successfully change everything at once about the way we live, so we need to prioritize. We cannot prioritize if we cannot have honest, sometimes difficult and wide ranging discussions about possible solutions if some of them have been deemed by a small group that they are utterly outside the possibility of discussion.

There are alternative to GMO that can be a solution to feeding people and the climate emergency. I think that agroforestry could be a solution in many cases (but not all) as the yields can be high and it stores carbon cheaply.

GMOs have many drawbacks :

  • Dependant on the oil industry
  • Farmers become dependant of powerful multinational companies
  • threat to biodiversity
  • the risk of a "Frankeinstein plant" appearing and causing all sort of damages.

I feel we would need to be desperate to take those risks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

I didn't as I was only trying to assert whether your claim that " The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact.  " was wild or not.

Within 10 seconds I established that your claim was utterly wrong.

Now you are trying to move the goal post from "they don't account for it" to "they don't understand it". I am sorry but I am an engineer, I don't do politics, I just reserve myself the right to laugh at politicians and at their fallacious arguments.

Then you as an engineer(who gives a fuck?) need to read it to see that they don’t understand these forces, use arbitrary numbers and assume constants when these forces are actually wildly variable. With even the most minute inference you should be able to get to “the ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing”. 
 

This stuff is actual science. Ignoring it with regards to predictions is downright disingenuous. You didn’t prove anything other than me being correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blunted, @ProaSailor, thanks for not using the word cunt as you two splice your thoughts together.

1 hour ago, blunted said:

Rejecting almost all possible solutions a priori because of a sub-textual agenda does not comport with their insistence on a huge innovation effort to solve the problem.

Blunted, I like that sentence, but I hope you will consider reducing your use of the words "solve" and "solution": I think what you are actually proposing are better approaches and tradeoffs, but not "solutions".  I know it sounds pedantic, but words matter, and it looks like you care about them.  Take our fellow above who wasn't thinking about economic opportunity cost, who needs to understand that *everything* is a tradeoff, in economics.  And climate policy is filed under "economics".

@d'ranger: Validity of answers to questions depends on context.  Q: "How long is the coast of Norway?" A: "How long is your ruler?"  It depends.  Cognitive dissonance only if you don't see/understand the bigger picture, or find it difficult to accept that some things can't be known.  Like what the temperature will be in a few decades.

@Panoramix Yes, there's not much mass moving in and out of the Earth vs universe system.   The earth is *almost* a closed thermodynamic system, but not quite.  I would be interested in understanding better whether the finite-element models the IPCC uses account for boundary-conditions properly.  I do know that the mesh-sizes they use are absolutely enormous, just to keep the problems tractable, so thinking we are accurately modelling things like cloud effects is pretty laughable.  You can read all about this stuff in the IPCC reports, but few people get beyond the Rec's to Policy-Wonks as I said.  It's really boring, and difficult.

17 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

We must stop fucking with mother nature like this!

Yes.  We need to embrace organic approaches to everything, else the species fails.  Which, big-big picture, is no biggie.  But I'm sentimental.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GMO cat is out of the bag.

U.S, the following crops are almost entirely GM

Soybeans

Maize

Zuccini (green squash)

large papaya

GM rape (canola oil)

Sugar beets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

@blunted, @ProaSailor, thanks for not using the word cunt as you two splice your thoughts together.

Blunted, I like that sentence, but I hope you will consider reducing your use of the words "solve" and "solution": I think what you are actually proposing are better approaches and tradeoffs, but not "solutions".  I know it sounds pedantic, but words matter, and it looks like you care about them.  Take our fellow above who wasn't thinking about economic opportunity cost, who needs to understand that *everything* is a tradeoff, in economics.  And climate policy is filed under "economics".

I couldn't agree more that "words matter".

I proposed the word "solution" because as I understand it, that's what Greta and her fellow travelers are demanding. Or have I misunderstood them? What are they demanding? Simply and end to how things are done now? I was of the impression that "they" think that the current situation is a problem and the problem needs to be addressed and they seem to have some pretty specific ideas as to how to address these problems. At the risk of also being pedantic is that not pretty much the definition of a "solution"? The outcome of a problem that is "solved"?

But hey, if you want to characterize what I am saying as a "better approach", sure go ahead, I don't think it changes the outcome per se. We are in one state of affairs, we are debating ways to change this state of affairs to an alternative state that is not the current state and not a previous state. I automatically assume that any "solution" has embedded within it tradeoffs and differing approaches. For me it kind of comes back to the goal. What is the goal? Is the goal net zero or is the goal absolutely no carbon emissions in the atmosphere? Or is the goal actually to arrest warming at 1.5 degrees plus? Each goal state has many possible solutions approaches to arrive at that goal each of those goals has immensely different approaches we could take to arrive at the goal state. 

So yah, words matter, what are we solving for?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

There are alternative to GMO that can be a solution to feeding people and the climate emergency. I think that agroforestry could be a solution in many cases (but not all) as the yields can be high and it stores carbon cheaply.

GMOs have many drawbacks :

  • Dependant on the oil industry
  • Farmers become dependant of powerful multinational companies
  • threat to biodiversity
  • the risk of a "Frankeinstein plant" appearing and causing all sort of damages.

I feel we would need to be desperate to take those risks.

 

So did you read my post, like, all the words? My specific scenario where an independent third party produces a GMO rice crop that they give away for free.

e.g Farmers do not become dependent upon multinationals

For Proa, I did not suggest the GMO I proposed would be Round up resistant. GMO in a broad sense does not automatically denote "roundup resistant". I simply suggested developing a strain of rice that could grow in hotter than normal conditions. (In many places on the earth where we grow rice it cannot germinate above a certain ambient temperature, yet there are many parts of the world that are heating up and getting perilously close to the level at which germination begins to fail. 2/3's of the world relies upon rice as a major part of the diet, would you deny 4 billion people their daily rice in the face of the global warming that began this debate out of an absolute rejection of genetic modification of any kind of plant?)

Keep in mind, GMO extends to any and all lifeforms that have DNA. So is there any circumstance under which either of you would support any tampering with organic DNA in animals, plants, insects, alagae?

What about if someone invented an Algae that could metabolize plastic? Off the table as too risky?

PS, many current farming practices are a threat to biodiversity independent of GMO. I agree biodiversity is an issue that must be addressed. If corporations are not involved and protecting patented GMO designs, farmers can back cross GMO strains into existing strains and thereby maintain or improve biodiversity, can they not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bodega87 said:

I’m not doing your research for you. The ipcc doesn’t account for solar forcing. That’s a fact. 
 

Spend a little time reading on what it does to our atmosphere, the phase were in(and about to end) and it’s relation to climate here. Scientists ignoring this or assuming it’s a constant causes any and all predictions and theories to be false. 

"The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming.  The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

 

@Panoramix Yes, there's not much mass moving in and out of the Earth vs universe system.   The earth is *almost* a closed thermodynamic system, but not quite.  I would be interested in understanding better whether the finite-element models the IPCC uses account for boundary-conditions properly.  I do know that the mesh-sizes they use are absolutely enormous, just to keep the problems tractable, so thinking we are accurately modelling things like cloud effects is pretty laughable.  You can read all about this stuff in the IPCC reports, but few people get beyond the Rec's to Policy-Wonks as I said.  It's really boring, and difficult.

Yes.  We need to embrace organic approaches to everything, else the species fails.  Which, big-big picture, is no biggie.  But I'm sentimental.

That's funny a few hours ago the earth was definitely not a closed thermodynamic system, no it is almost one. Do you really things that a few rocks will really impact the temperature of a planet which weight is several order of magnitude higher than the said rocks? Try to warm a swimming pool with a mug of hot water if not convinced...

As for finite elements models, yes they can be evil (http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/sleipner.html), I know as I use some simpler ones to model structures. Nevertheless I am still a free man as I didn't kill anybody through their misuse. If you are knowledgeable enough you can make several assumptions and reach pretty robust conclusions such as there is uncertainty but the results will be between x and y.

As far as I understand that's what the IPCC is doing, you will have noticed that they always give us ranges of possible output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Approximately 97% of all climate researchers are at a consensus that global warming is primarily due to human activity.

As I see it, there are three possible motivations for denying this reality.

1. Politics. Capitalism and the profit motive works to everyone's benefit, so nothing bad could possibly come from human activity motivated by profit.

2. Religion. The Abrahamic religions hold that God created our planet for man to exploit, so it is not possible that man could actually damage our planet.

3. Greed.  One's livelihood might depend on income from the fossil fuel industry.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, blunted said:

So did you read my post, like, all the words? My specific scenario where an independent third party produces a GMO rice crop that they give away for free.

e.g Farmers do not become dependent upon multinationals

For Proa, I did not suggest the GMO I proposed would be Round up resistant. GMO in a broad sense does not automatically denote "roundup resistant". I simply suggested developing a strain of rice that could grow in hotter than normal conditions. (In many places on the earth where we grow rice it cannot germinate above a certain ambient temperature, yet there are many parts of the world that are heating up and getting perilously close to the level at which germination begins to fail. 2/3's of the world relies upon rice as a major part of the diet, would you deny 4 billion people their daily rice in the face of the global warming that began this debate out of an absolute rejection of genetic modification of any kind of plant?)

Keep in mind, GMO extends to any and all lifeforms that have DNA. So is there any circumstance under which either of you would support any tampering with organic DNA in animals, plants, insects, alagae?

What about if someone invented an Algae that could metabolize plastic? Off the table as too risky?

PS, many current farming practices are a threat to biodiversity independent of GMO. I agree biodiversity is an issue that must be addressed. If corporations are not involved and protecting patented GMO designs, farmers can back cross GMO strains into existing strains and thereby maintain or improve biodiversity, can they not?

Yes, it could possibly be a solution in some cases. Nevertheless I think that it is often a solution looking out for a problem to solve. In many cases good old crop selection would address the issue.

At the moment there is a movement in France of farmers growing their own wheat and baking their bread. They've collaboratively (I quite like your seeds can I have some of them to better my mix) revived all kind of varieties which had been abandoned and their bread is fantastic. They are becoming knowledgeable, they are profitable (low expenditures as they are mostly self-sufficient) and I feel that these kind of movements  would have more chances to be successful. IMHO We will have to adapt and we need to empower people not make them dependents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, captain_crunch said:

Approximately 97% of all climate researchers are at a consensus that global warming is primarily due to human activity.

As I see it, there are three possible motivations for denying this reality.

1. Politics. Capitalism and the profit motive works to everyone's benefit, so nothing bad could possibly come from human activity motivated by profit.

2. Religion. The Abrahamic religions hold that God created our planet for man to exploit, so it is not possible that man could actually damage our planet.

3. Greed.  One's livelihood might depend on income from the fossil fuel industry.

 

4. you live a comfortable existence and the solutions things proposed to fix the problem would destroy your way of life.

seems to me like a big one as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

GMO cat is out of the bag.

U.S, the following crops are almost entirely GM

Soybeans

Maize

Zuccini (green squash)

large papaya

GM rape (canola oil)

Sugar beets

Not everywhere in Europe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Not everywhere in Europe.....

EU follows exactly opposite path to US. EU assumes all GM evil unless exhaustively proven good. US assumes all GM good unless exhaustively proven evil. (Gross oversimplification but rather true. Similar to the way chemicals are handled.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/

Quote

The IPCC approved and accepted Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate at its 51st Session held on 20 – 23 September 2019. The approved Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was presented at a press conference on 25 September 2019[today]

Summary for Policymakers (7.2 K pdf)
https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_SPM_Approved.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, captain_crunch said:

"The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming.  The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/14/global-warming-sun-leaked-ipcc-report

 

“If the IPCC were to report that the sun is a significant player in the current rapid global warming, that would be indeed major news, because the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature and data clearly show that the sun has made little of any contribution to the observed global warming over the past 50+ years”

Like I was saying...

That article goes on to extremely over simplify one aspect of solar and space forcing on the climate. Because these scientists couldn’t prove cloud seeding with CGR, all solar and space forcing is invalid? And all of their “projections” are now valid? How wonderfully convenient is that?!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a great article about opportunity cost.

https://hbr.org/2011/10/the-sustainable-economy

Environmentalists  speak of something called a ‘sustainable economy’. It involves synthesizing the needs of nature and those of humankind, rather than seeing them as opposed. I suspect that Greta and many others see no future in a throwaway economy based on and dependent on unfettered  growth. Call it radical if you must, but economic inducements/rewards/taxes to modify corporate behaviour, such as a carbon tax, or a trash tax, or any other environmental regulation are quite likely to become the norm and more widespread. Attaching a profit motive to reward meeting goals and to penalize failure seems like a sound ‘approach’.

As for ‘the way the world works today’, well it’s most likely a little different than it’ll be tomorrow. 1st World consumption habits will and have to change, and the fact that these habits are in the crosshairs of a 16 year old kid garnering worldwide attention is all part of it.

....,,.,

Here’s a straightforward article about people that choose to use less.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2018/05/zero-waste-families-plastic-culture

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the same way that many third world countries skipped telephone poles by going directly to cell phones instead, other technologies like electric vehicles are being widely adopted.  We (first world) may still have the best EV technology but cheap oil has delayed its use.

Why The US Trails China In Electric Buses  (Sep 24, 2019 - 12 minutes)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

EU follows exactly opposite path to US. EU assumes all GM evil unless exhaustively proven good. US assumes all GM good unless exhaustively proven evil. (Gross oversimplification but rather true. Similar to the way chemicals are handled.)

and either way, China doesn't give two fucks about either regulatory regime. They are going to do whatever they feel they need to do to keep their population fed and under control.

Our firm works with the fourth largest produce distribution center in North America. On more than a number of occasions the Chinese government has sent delegations to study and understand how the facility and more importantly, the entire system (Farm to table) works. They are desperately concerned about feeding their population for a whole raft of obvious reasons. (Hint, they are frequently on the edge of not being able to feed their population, just look at their current swine flu epidemic). I think we could all possibly agree that this particular government will do whatever it takes to accomplish a goal such as food security. I think the country in question has already demonstrated repeatedly that they frequently step way outside any Western version of ethical conduct when it comes to genetic modification on plants, animals or people.

So I'd say in that regard, the cat is also out of the bag. You may think Dow chemical is bad, I think the Chinese government is demonstrably worse. You're not going to stop GMO at this point, but you could regulate it in your own jurisdictions, as most all Western countries do.

So at that point you have a moral conundrum, do you shut down all ethical and managed GMO research simply yielding the entire field to a 'bad actor" or do you develop stuff at the same time within agreed upon boundaries and hope that one day you can bring the bad actors into the tent? It's a tough question or set of questions.

This same moral dilemma reflects back into each and every sub topic discussed in this thread. Let's say "the West" gets it's shit together and goes through some massive "reformation" what about the other two thirds of the world's population? Will they get on board?

so same for green energy, sure they, CHI, produce masses of solar panels, they also open a new coal fired electrical plant every week of the year.

None of what I just said is meant as a justification for not doing anything, it is meant to point out the complexity of the problems at hand. Absolutist positions on anything is this regard are a serious problem as they leave zero room for compromise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blunted said:

and either way, China doesn't give two fucks about either regulatory regime. They are going to do whatever they feel they need to do to keep their population fed and under control.

Our firm works with the fourth largest produce distribution center in North America. On more than a number of occasions the Chinese government has sent delegations to study and understand how the facility and more importantly, the entire system (Farm to table) works. They are desperately concerned about feeding their population for a whole raft of obvious reasons. (Hint, they are frequently on the edge of not being able to feed their population, just look at their current swine flu epidemic). I think we could all possibly agree that this particular government will do whatever it takes to accomplish a goal such as food security. I think the country in question has already demonstrated repeatedly that they frequently step way outside any Western version of ethical conduct when it comes to genetic modification on plants, animals or people.

So I'd say in that regard, the cat is also out of the bag. You may think Dow chemical is bad, I think the Chinese government is demonstrably worse. You're not going to stop GMO at this point, but you could regulate it in your own jurisdictions, as most all Western countries do.

So at that point you have a moral conundrum, do you shut down all ethical and managed GMO research simply yielding the entire field to a 'bad actor" or do you develop stuff at the same time within agreed upon boundaries and hope that one day you can bring the bad actors into the tent? It's a tough question or set of questions.

This same moral dilemma reflects back into each and every sub topic discussed in this thread. Let's say "the West" gets it's shit together and goes through some massive "reformation" what about the other two thirds of the world's population? Will they get on board?

so same for green energy, sure they, CHI, produce masses of solar panels, they also open a new coal fired electrical plant every week of the year.

None of what I just said is meant as a justification for not doing anything, it is meant to point out the complexity of the problems at hand. Absolutist positions on anything is this regard are a serious problem as they leave zero room for compromise and therefore result in a serious lack of real progress.

FIFY...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

... a few hours ago the earth was definitely not a closed thermodynamic system...

And it still is definitely not a closed thermodynamic system.  I think you are tilting at saplings, here, Panoramix, avec un grand foret partout.  My point, in general, is that there are all kinds of assumptions made when we model things, and *usually* the systems we are modelling do not actually meet the requirements of the mathematical means by which they are modeled... some assumption of invariance, independence, linearity, that noise is uncorrelated, Gaussian-distributed, etc etc.  If you do modelling you should understand this.  Our modern software packages tend to hide all this.   In some systems (even complicated ones, but that are not complex) the fact that the modelling assumptions are invalid does not much affect accuracy, in others (complex systems) it does. 

Climate is complex.  Panoramix, I am feeling that you are insufficiently acquainted with chaos, complexity, non-linear feedback-systems (Mandelbrot etait Francais, non?).  Most of this was unknown/untaught in my undergrad days.  Many people haven't bothered to look deep enough to find out just how little we really know, and can predict.  The world is a lot weirder than we tend to be taught, and universities sell hubris, not humility.  We understand so little.  We don't have a climate problem so much as an epistemological one, where we think we know more than we really do.  This problem is even worse in economics.

I have actually read large chunks of multiple IPCC reports - the sections that interest me, and typically I key-word search and read different parts.  I don't get paid to do climate-research, but I feel some responsibility to try and understand it, since there is so much damn hype about it.  And since I work in alternate-energy.

And what I have found, every time I look, is that the amount of confidence we should place in the IPCC temperature projections is quite low.  As I recall from the last read, there were several places where folks admitted a lack of sufficient sensitivity analysis or other flaws, and didn't feel their models had much predictive power, but it doesn't seem to stop policy-people from thinking that the IPCC techies have a crystal ball, and that highly disruptive economic policy should be based upon it.

I don't think Greta groks.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bacq2bacq said:

And it still is definitely not a closed thermodynamic system.  I think you are tilting at saplings, here, Panoramix, avec un grand foret partout.  My point, in general, is that there are all kinds of assumptions made when we model things, and *usually* the systems we are modelling do not actually meet the requirements of the mathematical means by which they are modeled... some assumption of invariance, independence, linearity, that noise is uncorrelated, Gaussian-distributed, etc etc.  If you do modelling you should understand this.  Our modern software packages tend to hide all this.   In some systems (even complicated ones, but that are not complex) the fact that the modelling assumptions are invalid does not much affect accuracy, in others (complex systems) it does. 

Climate is complex.  Panoramix, I am feeling that you are insufficiently acquainted with chaos, complexity, non-linear feedback-systems (Mandelbrot etait Francais, non?).  Most of this was unknown/untaught in my undergrad days.  Many people haven't bothered to look deep enough to find out just how little we really know, and can predict.  The world is a lot weirder than we tend to be taught, and universities sell hubris, not humility.  We understand so little.  We don't have a climate problem so much as an epistemological one, where we think we know more than we really do.  This problem is even worse in economics.

I have actually read large chunks of multiple IPCC reports - the sections that interest me, and typically I key-word search and read different parts.  I don't get paid to do climate-research, but I feel some responsibility to try and understand it, since there is so much damn hype about it.  And since I work in alternate-energy.

And what I have found, every time I look, is that the amount of confidence we should place in the IPCC temperature projections is quite low.  As I recall from the last read, there were several places where folks admitted a lack of sufficient sensitivity analysis or other flaws, and didn't feel their models had much predictive power, but it doesn't seem to stop policy-people from thinking that the IPCC techies have a crystal ball, and that highly disruptive economic policy should be based upon it.

I don't think Greta groks.

For what it's worth and to interrupt your spiel:  Mandelbrot was Polish and moved to France as a child (lucky for him, given the 1939-45 unpleasantness) and then the US, acquiring dual citizenship.  From the age of 22 he worked at IBM in New York for 35 years then Harvard and Yale.  So, sure, he was French.  Your point being?

And...

Greta pretty well "groks" (milord, who says that anymore?) that things aren't heading in a good direction.  You seem to be proposing a "wait and see" approach.  Being the kind of person who buys insurance on things that are important to me, I think I'll bet on Greta.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like I’m on my way across the pond a few weeks ago and I’m looking around and I’m like -OMG! This WHOLE boat I’m on is made of Carbon!!!

I started hyperventilating and a nice rich Prince or someone told me not to worry, because someone else had already paid for the carbon construction, so I was off the hook. And that not to worry, the PR stunt I was pulling was so slick that no one in the media would bother to reveal the details of the boat or its rigging and sails. He and the rest of the crew then flew off in their fossil fuel burning airplanes  

Well, it worked out better than I ever dreamed. Useful Idiots everywhere are tripping over each other getting in line. I’ve got all the Democrats lined up, and the US mainstream media is eating from my hand. 

Normally a 16 year old with documented developmental disabilities  would be in school, but I think I’ve got a hall pass through at least the next Nobel awards presentation.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blunted said:

4. you live a comfortable existence and the solutions things proposed to fix the problem would destroy your way of life.

seems to me like a big one as well.

Yeah, that's a good one to add, but I don't believe it is actually true.  A switch to renewable energy would have benefits beyond reducing global warming.

 

what_if_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saint Greta said:

So like I’m on my way across the pond a few weeks ago and I’m looking around and I’m like -OMG! This WHOLE boat I’m on is made of Carbon!!!

I started hyperventilating and a nice rich Prince or someone told me not to worry, because someone else had already paid for the carbon construction, so I was off the hook. And that not to worry, the PR stunt I was pulling was so slick that no one in the media would bother to reveal the details of the boat or its rigging and sails. He and the rest of the crew then flew off in their fossil fuel burning airplanes  

Well, it worked out better than I ever dreamed. Useful Idiots everywhere are tripping over each other getting in line. I’ve got all the Democrats lined up, and the US mainstream media is eating from my hand. 

Normally a 16 year old with documented developmental disabilities  would be in school, but I think I’ve got a hall pass through at least the next Nobel awards presentation.

 

Can you think of a cooler way to sequester carbon?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites